MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345781070 · doi:10.1121/1.4949912

Towards real-time two-dimensional wave propagation for articulatory speech synthesis

2016· article· en· W2345781070 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Zappi, Arvind Vasudevan, Sidney Fels

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocal tractComputer scienceLeverage (statistics)Speech productionTime domainAcousticsAerodynamicsSpeech recognitionSimulationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The precise simulation of voice production is a challenging task, especially when real-time performances are sought. To fulfill real-time constraints, most articulatory vocal synthesizers have to rely on highly simplified acoustic and anatomical models, based on 1D wave propagation and on the usage of vocal tract area functions. In this work, we present a 2D propagation model, designed to simulate the air flow traveling through the midsagittal contour of the vocal tract. Building on the work by Allen et al. [Andrew Allen and Nikunj Raghuvanshi, “Aerophones in flatland: Interactive wave simulation of wind instruments,” ACM Trans. Graph. 34, Article 134 (2015)], we leverage OpenGL and GPU parallelism for a real-time precise 2D airwave simulation. The domain is divided into cells according to a Finite-Difference Time-Domain scheme and coupled with a self-oscillating two-mass vocal fold model. To investigate the system’s ability to simulate the physiology of the vocal tract and its aerodynamics, two studies are presented. First, we compare the performances in vowel production of our 2D approach with other 1D wave propagation systems in literature, using area functions. Subsequently, this case is extended by replacing area functions with 2D vocal tract contours derived from 3D MRI data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207